Crawford avalanche. (Grayling, Mich.) 1879-19??, 1887-12-15

taxation: 70 is a tar upon whisky, beer. and
tobacco, things which are a very small meas.
mankind II they are necessary 20 any
unfortunate man, they are far less neces-
sary even 20 him than are a thou
taxes This tax Is the least burdensome. the
least unjuet Of all the taxes which the Govern
mont lays or can lay upon the people Il should
with due regard to the existing conditions OF
labor and capital, sufficient reduction can be
made In the taxation OF necessary articles
which are In the daily use OF all the people.
Tho report shows that the circulation of the
standard silver dollar is growing in popular
ity, having increased $40. asa, 9O5 during the
past year.
A WASHINGTON special TO tho Chicago
Inter Ocean says:
The negotiations of the FisheryCom mission
arc approaching an end, and there Il good
70 secure agreement upon treaty have failed.
IL appears that Mr.. Chamberlain and Mr..
Bayard could have come TO an under
standing. but Sir Charles Upper is OBJ
durate and is not willing TO accept
the terms to which alone the American
Commissioners and Secretary Bayard are will
ing to agree. Sir Charles Topper, in fact 10
classed by his associates an irreconcilable.
and they acknowledge to those in official rela-
tions with them that it may be considered that
the negotiations. SO far as tho treaty goes are
practically at an end.
Those who are best informed upon the sub
ject are now Of the opinion that SO far as our
administration goes tho subject will end by
recommendation by the President to Con-
gress that Joint resolution shall be passed au-
thorizing the Executive TO refer all questions as
TO the Interpretation of the treaty OF 1873 to ar
bitration.
1HE United States Supreme Court has rem
dered decision sustaining the State in tho
Kansas prohibition cases. The effect of this
opinion is to declare valid the prohibition
laws OF the State of Kansas, and is of course
decided victory for the Prohibitionists.
Tho decision is very important, and likely to
be far-reachiug in its consequences The
judgment OF the court was pronounced in
long and elaborate opinion by Mr.. Justice
Har,an:
The Justice sail IL had been held repeatedly
that the right of a State to regulate the sale OF
liquor did not invade the constitutional rights
of tho citizen. IL was contended, however, no
said, that no State Legislature had right to
liquor for his own use or for export, for the rea-
son that IL was an invasion OF the personal
liberty inherent in citizens. 1t must be OBJ
served. however, he said, that the right to man
ufacture drink for ones own use was SUBJ
ject to the restriction that it should not inuri-
ously affect the public. The right to determine
what was injurious had to exist somewhere,
and the right of determining what measures
were necessary for the preservation OF the public
morals, health and safety had heretofore been
vested in the States by the constitutional right
given them under the police power to regulate
their own internal concerns. While this police
power could not be abused and must only be
exercised for objects OF real merit this court
would certainly not say that the liquor traffic
was not one which the State could lawfully
prohibit because it was we'll known that the
abuse Of intoxicants was productive OF pauper-
ism and crime. The next ground OF contention,
the Justice said, was, that the breweries had
been erected prior to the passage OF the prohibi-
laW n Var Of m 60
breweries, their property was taken without
due process OF law in violation OF the Consti-
sovernment he held. was subiect to the
obligation that 1t should not be used so
as to injuriously affect the rights Of the com
munfty, ana thereby become nuisance. The
State Of Kansas had q right to prohibit the
liquor traffic. IL did not thereby take away the
the property of brewers. 1t simply abated a
nuisance. The property was not taken away
from its owners; they were only prohibited
from using il for a specific purpose, which the
LEGISLATURE declared to be injurious to the
Justice Field concurred in the opinion so
far as il related to the TWO cases in which the
State of Kansas was defendant
He agreed. he said, to so much of the opinion
as sustains the validity of the act Of Kansas
prohibiting the sale OF intoxicants which are
manufactured in the State after the passage OF
the act He was not prepared, however. to say
that the prohibition Of the manufacture of such
liquors, II intended for expectation, can be sus-
tanned, nor that the State can forbid the sale
the health and morals of the people
OF any article which Congress may
authorize to be imported. He was
not ready to admit that New York or any
other coast State can thus defeat an act Of Con-
gress Neither could he concur in the validity
OF the thirteenth section Of the prohibition act
OF Kansas, because he believed IL authorized
the destruction of property without due process
OF law. He could not see upon what principle
tXe desstfrdct6h q %hS Il sata
may be valuable for medical or mechanical pur.
poses nor could no why the protection Of
the morals Of tho State required the destruc-
ton OF bottles and other utensils after the
liquor had been ompticd from them